United States v. Wakefield , 204 F. App'x 302 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
HERBERT WAKEFIELD, III,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-96-710)
Submitted: September 29, 2006 Decided: October 31, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Herbert Wakefield, III, Appellant Pro Se. Isaac Louis Johnson,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Wakefield, III, appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(g),
seeking the return of currency that was seized from him during his
arrest. Wakefield asserts that he is entitled to the return of the
property and he was never notified of any proposed forfeiture of
the money. We review the denial of a motion for the return of
seized property for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Chambers, 192 F.3d 374, 376 (3d Cir. 1999). A district court
abuses its discretion if it fails or refuses to exercise its
discretion, fails “adequately to take into account judicially
recognized factors constraining its exercise” of discretion, or
exercises its discretion based upon “erroneous factual or legal
premises.” James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir. 1993).
In the present case, the record contains only Wakefield’s
motion, a notation on the docket sheet of the district court’s oral
order denying that motion, Wakefield’s request for a statement of
reasons for the decision, a docket sheet entry of the court’s oral
order denying that request, and the notice of appeal. The district
court’s orders do not express the reason for the denial of the
motion for return of property. Because we cannot discern a basis
for the decision on the sparse record before us, we are unable to
determine whether the district court appropriately exercised its
discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and
- 2 -
remand for further proceedings. We deny Wakefield’s motion for
appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -